Citi Open 2019, Washington DC, USA, ATP 500

[kskate2]

2 cp's for Nicky

 

[AnonymousFan]

Championship point!!!

 

[AnonymousFan]

Ace!!! Go Kyrgios lol

 

[kskate2]

Nicky getting serve advice from the crowd in all his matches. LOL!

 

[AnonymousFan]

Nicky getting serve advice from the crowd in all his matches. LOL!

All his matches? That’s awesome

What did she say, out wide? lol!!!

 

[kskate2]

She said out wide. The guy last night told him BH and earlier in the week another fan told him where to serve.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Nicky Dad had to have 5 rackets FedEx from Australia that made it to him at 10 am..shoegate, racketgate, bipolar meltdown..well it was a welcome change from Fedalovic...

^^ That has to be a first. o_O

Yep

 

[the AntiPusher]

What a pure yawn of a trophy presentation

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, Nick has won two 500s in the same year now. Time for him to win a Masters soon.

He has better chances at Bercy, as he only has to keep his head straight for five matches there (as opposed to six in other Masters).

 

[El Dude]

You have completely forgotten what little it took to be #1 before the Fedalovic era. But it still takes a lot to be #1 or #2. #5 is a place that has been visited by any number of guys. That's not the glass ceiling.

Good point. The list of active players who have been #1 and #2 is the same four players. Here are how players max out in the top five:

#1: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray
#2: None
#3: Wawrinka, Raonic, Zverev, Dimitrov, Cilic, del Potro (Ferrer would have been here)
#4: Nishikori, Berdych, Thiem
#5: Robredo, Tsonga, Anderson, Tsitsipas

The point being, #2 is just as rarifed as #1, at least in recent years. Even historically it isn't that far behind: There are only 11 players who reached #2 but never reached #1 in the ATP era (1973-present): Orantes, Rosewall, Vilas, Ashe, Stich, Ivanisevic, Chang, Korda, Corretja, Norman, Haas.

 

[Moxie]

Good point. The list of active players who have been #1 and #2 is the same four players. Here are how players max out in the top five:

#1: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray
#2: None
#3: Wawrinka, Raonic, Zverev, Dimitrov, Cilic, del Potro (Ferrer would have been here)
#4: Nishikori, Berdych, Thiem
#5: Robredo, Tsonga, Anderson, Tsitsipas

The point being, #2 is just as rarifed as #1, at least in recent years. Even historically it isn't that far behind: There are only 11 players who reached #2 but never reached #1 in the ATP era (1973-present): Orantes, Rosewall, Vilas, Ashe, Stich, Ivanisevic, Chang, Korda, Corretja, Norman, Haas.

And I think the Vilas one is controversial.

 

[El Dude]

As for Kyrgios, I keep thinking of Stan Wawrinka and think Nick's best-case scenario is something like that: he gets his shit together, the talent actualizes into a pretty strong run of a few years. He's never going to be as consistent as one of the Big Four--as talented as he is, he doesn't have that wide array of skills and basically weakness-free game that the Big Four have--but he could be that guy, like Stan, who no one wants to face. He's already half-way there.

 

[Moxie]

I was kinda hoping it would go 3. Nice win from Nick, though. And his going to the crowd for where to serve on MP has certainly been a crowd-pleaser. He may be kinda nuts, but there's a lot of PT Barnum in him. When he channels the crowd in a good way, it certainly works better for him than fighting with them.

 

[El Dude]

And I think the Vilas one is controversial.

Yep. And Rosewall would have almost certainly been #1 at some point in the early 70s, definitely in the 60s and 50s. Ashe possibly as well in the early 70s.

EDIT: I checked Ultimate Tennis Statistics, which has extrapolated rankings for the pre-ATP Open Era. They credit Rosewall with 53 weeks at #1, Laver with 193, but not Ashe. But they add Tony Roche to the #2s so it stays at eleven.

 

[Moxie]

As for Kyrgios, I keep thinking of Stan Wawrinka and think Nick's best-case scenario is something like that: he gets his shit together, the talent actualizes into a pretty strong run of a few years. He's never going to be as consistent as one of the Big Four--as talented as he is, he doesn't have that wide array of skills and basically weakness-free game that the Big Four have--but he could be that guy, like Stan, who no one wants to face. He's already half-way there.

Not a bad comparison. He's shown his ability to beat top guys earlier, of course, but it's anyone's guess as to how much he maximizes it. But yeah, even if he can't always keep his s**t together, he's got a decent chance of picking up a few Majors, if he can hang in the game long enough, and basically ever be arsed.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

a rare week when nick is in the mood to play tennis..

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yep. And Rosewall would have almost certainly been #1 at some point in the early 70s, definitely in the 60s and 50s. Ashe possibly as well in the early 70s.

EDIT: I checked Ultimate Tennis Statistics, which has extrapolated rankings for the pre-ATP Open Era. They credit Rosewall with 53 weeks at #1, Laver with 193, but not Ashe. But they add Tony Roche to the #2s so it stays at eleven.

nobody is gonna remember this masterseries in DC..only the 1000 and grand slams..Nick can’t keep it together for one week..He doesn’t have enough talent to overcome his lack of dedication and concentration..even in 5 years when the Big 3 will be gone..FAA will be the King of the courts by then

 

[Moxie]

nobody is gonna remember this masterseries in DC..only the 1000 and grand slams..Nick can’t keep it together for one week..He doesn’t have enough talent to overcome his lack of dedication and concentration..even in 5 years when the Big 3 will be gone..FAA will be the King of the courts by then

Didn't you just say that he has a lot of talent? I know it's a big debate around here these days, but where do you really fall on the issue of his talent?

 

[Carol]

Congrats to the most talented player of the ATP 500, two titles already this year......

 

[the AntiPusher]

Didn't you just say that he has a lot of talent? I know it's a big debate around here these days, but where do you really fall on the issue of his talent?

Big Sis Moxie..yes Wacky Nicky has talent but he can't defeat 6 top 50 plus players in a row .. especially for a Grandslam title. Think about it this way..replay the Wimbledon final..look how tight and close it was. Replace either Roger or Novak with Nick and his lack of concentration trick shots..he would not be able to last 3 to four hours which is typically required to with a slam ..Nick would be gone easily in 3 sets.. reference RG finals..as talented as Thiem is ..he couldn't last vs Rafa..it takes a higher level of commitment plus concentration combined with flawless execution to capture the championships. IMO